[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7933-S7934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1305. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
improve the process for listing, recovery planning, and delisting, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                LISTING AND DELISTING REFORM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and 
Delisting Reform Act of 1999, cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming,

[[Page S7934]]

Senator Enzi. The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best 
examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am taking one 
small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a 
regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more 
effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and 
state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to 
conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery 
planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, 
is easier to achieve.
  In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing 
and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should 
be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible 
data that has been peer-reviewed. Recently, the Prebles Meadow Jumping 
Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this 
mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good 
science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's Rule 
relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of as 
opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and 
current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid 
plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical 
habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to 
uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the 
State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and 
landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not 
foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful 
species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately 
needed to the Endangered Species Act.
  Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, is the black tailed prairie dog. 
Petitions to list the prairie dog have been filed and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service has said the petition is not only warranted but 
deserves further study. I have lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I 
have logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over 
the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of 
prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that 
opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the 
country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on 
completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the 
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for 
economic survival.
  My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use 
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-
reviewed. Right now, it is basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any 
person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with 
little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd 
practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition 
that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, 
population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. 
In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient 
biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery 
plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the 
process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.
  This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with 
regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. 
Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question 
the basic premise that some species require the protection of the 
Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship 
on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only 
reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should 
be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our 
communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
  In my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the 
Secretary of the Interior is unable to tell me what measures will be 
required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary cannot tell me what 
acts or omissions we can expect to face as a consequence of listing. 
How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of 
the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how 
to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve 
recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?
  This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of 
Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching 
practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private 
citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a 
listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have 
to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough 
information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why 
list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-
zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve 
the goal of recovering the species?
  This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of 
information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to 
list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required 
for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is 
all that this provision would require.
  Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise 
the end of the process--the delisting procedure. Recovery and delisting 
are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is 
virtually impossible to currently delist a species. There is no 
certainty in the process and the States--the folks who have all the 
responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list--are 
not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the 
species should be delisted.
  Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly Bear pinpoints some of the 
problems with the current delisting process. The Interagency Grizzly 
Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone 
ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been 
removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service for years over this one to noavail, despite tremendous effort 
and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded 
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
  The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, 
are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of 
countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some 
real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big 
impacts. The changes I have suggested will have a significant effect on 
the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed 
in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly 
need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real 
goal--recovery and delisting.
                                 ______